David Burrows reflects on the limits of legal professional privilege, particularly in relation to legal advice privilege
- Legal advice privilege (LAP) does not apply when a lawyer acts only as a ‘person of business’.
- When may the ‘iniquity exemption’ exclude operation of LAP?
- Legal advice to a party’s employees is not always covered by a legal professional privilege (LPP) exemption.
A blaze of press publicity greeted the judgment of Haddon-Cave J (a QBD judge) dated 15 December 2016 AAZ v BBZ & Ors [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam), remarkable because in the absence of BBZ (H) he was ordered to provide to AAZ (W) assets worth just over £453bn. This sum included a modern art collection (estimated value £90,581,865). Less attention has been paid to a later judgment (20 December 2016) published at the same time as the first in which Haddon-Cave J considered the extent to which the dealings of the then solicitor for H (S) with the insurance of the art collection was covered by legal advice privilege (LAP) ( AAZ v BBZ & Ors (No 2)
